Today in Supreme Court History: April 10, 1967

4/10/1967: Loving v. Virginia argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (decided April 10, 1876): secret agent can't sue United States for payment for services, due to publicity and exposure of government secrets; must make claim on contingency fund of agency which hired him

Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4 (decided April 10, 1944): invalidating statute providing that failure to perform paid-for work was prima facie evidence of fraud (i.e., no defenses allowed), which had been re-enacted by Florida legislature despite the Court invalidating similar statutes; prima facie presumption provision could not be severed from the rest of the statute, because its presence coerced guilty pleas (as it did in this case; defendant was "an illiterate Negro")

Morford v. United States, 339 U.S. 258 (decided April 10, 1950): Conviction for failing to produce "subversive" organization materials to House Un-American Activities Committee. Somehow at jury selection federal employees were not excused for cause. Court holds that refusal to allow voir dire on whether the "Loyalty Oath" might influence their partiality was reversible error.

Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. v. United States, 322 U.S. 1 (decided April 10, 1944): ICC can grant new railroad service to intermediate points not applied for

Franks Bros. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702 (decided April 10, 1944): NLRB properly ordered company to bargain with union after unlawful refusal to bargain resulted in union losing its majority membership of workers

White Oak Transportation Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341 (decided April 10, 2009): cargo owner (2,393 tons of coal) can get full recovery from vessel owner even though damage partly caused by canal owner; vessel owner can seek contribution from canal owner later

Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (decided April 10, 1967): claims by Japanese nationals whose accounts with American banks were seized after Pearl Harbor not bound by 60-day Trading with the Enemy Act deadline where they were not listed on schedule mailed out to proposed recipients

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (decided April 10, 1967): federal interpleader brought by trucker's liability insurer did not resolve underlying claims against insured, just the claims on the insurance proceeds (as insurers' defense counsel I brought a federal interpleader action against some 20 claimants, but I was ethically bound to make sure they all agreed to discontinue their individual suits before I put the $ on the table)

Walling v. Reuter, 321 U.S. 671 (decided April 10, 1944): restoring district court order (which the circuit court had reversed) restraining corporation and related individuals from violating Fair Labor Standards Act, where corporation had dissolved after cert had been granted; order (which held that employees packing fruit for wholesaler were involved in interstate commerce and had to be paid mininum wage) still good against individuals and any successor entities

Ferry v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Ry. Co., 258 U.S. 314 (decided April 10, 1922): dower (there's an old word!) is not a "privilege or immunity" subject to Equal Protection of Fourteenth Amendment; state can limit widow's dower if she lives out of state

[John F. Carr]

Prima facie is a phrase of several meanings. Under my state's law in a criminal case it provides enough evidence to send the case to a jury. In a civil case it compels a party to produce evidence to rebut the presumption.

[John F. Carr]

What does an ethical defense counsel for an insurer do when the combined claims will exceed policy limits?

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's exactly the situation when interpleader is used -- when the claimed amounts exceed the policy limit and it's clear there is no liability defense (or not enough of a percentage to reduce a likely judgment to below the policy limit). The beauty of interpleader is that if the claimant wants a piece of the policy, he has to participate. The purpose is to settle all the claims. Theoretically each claimant has the right, after receiving the proceeds, to continue after the insured to reach into the insured's own pocket. But that is rarely something claimants want to do. (In such a case, the insurance company continues to have a duty to defend, unless the policy provides for a termination of duty after the policy limits are tendered, and even then, a motion has to be made to withdraw which may or may not be granted.)

[John F. Carr]

So you have an ethical duty to request a release of claims even though you are not entitled to one as of right?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, of course. Ethics requires you to affirmatively do things, things you're not entitled to.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"White Oak Transportation Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341 (decided April 10, 2009): cargo owner (2,393 tons of coal) can get full recovery from vessel owner even though damage partly caused by canal owner; vessel owner can seek contribution from canal owner later"

Ummm, no. I was suspicious of this because the *current* Cape Cod Canal is owned by the US Army Core of Engineers -- an issue in replacing the bridges over it. This actual case is dated 1922.

The canal actually follows two tidal rivers and after failures dating back to Miles Standish, the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company started building a canal in 1909, and it opened in 1914 using Phinney Harbor. It was quite treacherous as it got (and still gets) four tides a day.

In July of 1918, a German sub shelled a tugboat towing four barges at which point the US Railroad Commission took over the canal under a Presidential Proclamation, with it being given back to its owners in 1920 and then being purchased by the government in 1928 and widened by the Army Core of Engineering during the Depression.

SCOTUS appears to have ruled: "Decree to be entered that the Northern Coal Company recover its damages and costs from the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company; that the White Oak Transportation Company exonerate the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company from one-half of the above damages and costs, and that the damages and costs of the White Oak Transportation Company and the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company be equally divided between those two companies."

I'm guessing this incident happened 1920-1922.

[David Nieporent]

I’m guessing this incident happened 1920-1922.

If you read the opinion enough to quote a paragraph from it, how could you miss the very first sentence?

"On December 13, 1916, the steamer Bay Port, while passing through the Cape Cod Canal, ran ashore on the south bank and the next day sank diagonally across it."

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don't know...

[Life of Brian]

If you read the opinion enough to quote a paragraph from it

Heck, OP supposedly read it enough to summarize it. But I get it's safer to pick on the non-lawyer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those who hoped the Volokh Conspiracy might make it to 24 hours without publishing a vile racial slur deflated when they saw that Blackman and Barnett chose Loving for today's edition.

Maybe tomorrow?

[Dan Schiavetta]

There are several points to be said about that case. I decided to mention just one. I do that pretty frequently, to keep the summaries short.

[Life of Brian]

Unclear what that has to do with the decision date being off by ~87 years, which was the point Ed raised.

[Sarcastr0]

Why are you defending Ed? What is your theory that DMN corrected Ed only because Ed wasn't a lawer?

Ed made up a year because he couldn't take the time to glance the top of the opinion. That's shoddy no matter who you are.

captcrisis looks to have made a scrivener's error. Ed just took a wild guess for no good reason.

[Life of Brian]

Hey, aren't you that dude that screeches at people all the time about mindreading? Somehow you managed to do it three times in six sentences.

If it weren't for double standards, apparently you'd have none at all.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You’re right, I put in 2009 by mistake.

[Sarcastr0]

That wasn't mind reading it was quite clear from what they wrote, and how the both reacted when pressed.

And hey I was right.

This is what you happen when you try and defend Ed.